Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drake (musician)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Drake (musician)[edit]

These are single person portals about entertainers that fail WP:POG for lack of scope. I just did a sweep of Category:all portals and I believe these are the remaining pages of this class except for one that was kept in a recent MFD. Except for Drake these are older portals. I've not checked them for other errors/lack of maintenance as that does not matter much when we have deleted so many single person/band/entertainer portals already setting a precedent.

The only prior MfD on any of these appears to be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Usher Legacypac (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All- Faulty nomination. No prejudice toward nominating separately. Also consider only bundling the newer, automated portals, and omitting the curated ones from this nomination, to perhaps be nominated individually.

Importantly, users may not realize that some portals listed here are curated, instead just assuming that they're all automated. Per WP:PRESERVE, I feel that curated portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Many of these portals are based upon major musicians and bands that have significant content about them available on Wikipedia. Two have already been identified in the opinion of the !vote above as meeting WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 01:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happypills there are a several things wrong with your statement. First the nomination says "Except for Drake these are older portals". So there is no reason for anyone to be confused. Further clicking on the portals will show anyone they are not the new style (again Drake excluded).

The exception is Drake which you made recently as a one click wonder. It is a slam dunk delete based on being the same design rejected thousands of times at MfD. so yes maybe I could have run that one as a separate MfD or just dumped it in a bulk deletion of automated portals. In fact, given the clear results of all these MfDs why not do every one a favour and tag it G7.

Second, there is no !vote above yours so I can't understand your comment that someone thinks these meet WP:POG.

Third, with two possible exceptions these are all superstars on pretty much the same level. What possible basis could someone argue that Lady Gaga needs a portal but Katy Perry does not? That makes putting these very similar portals in a bundle a good idea as they should be discussed as a class.

I also note we have deleted some very very big individual stars and bands portals because they are about single people/bands. This is actually one of the very last nominations of individuals. There are just a handful of bio portals still not deleted or tagged for deletion.

Comment. I agree with Happypillsjr that these are a very ill-assorted bunch, some extremely well known, some not so much. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - I have spot-checked the histories, and the histories are a mixed bag, and their names are a mixed bag. I support the comment of User:Espresso Addict (not caring about that by Happypillsjr). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 9 Independent of whether these are new or old portals, and independent of whether they are single page or multi-page, none of these entertainers meets the breadth-of subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. There is no procedural issue with bundling nominations that share the same fundamental flaw. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 9 per UnitedStatesian's very accurate summary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There is has been a consistent consensus across dozens of recent MFDs that a single person is too narrow a topic to satisfy the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

In cases of narrow scope, the method of creation of history of maintenance doesn't matter, but no amount of hard work will alter the fatal flaw of narrow scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.